Anti-Incarnational sacramentalism

Lutheranism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy, in their different ways, all stress the “Real Presence.” But a basic problem with the “Real Presence” is the way in which that dogma lays an ax to the root of the Incarnation–as well as the Resurrection. It’s a fundamentally anti-Incarnational view of the Eucharist.

Jesus had a body. A real body. A physical body. This is clear from the Gospels. He had a visible, tangible body. A body of normal height and weight, comparable to other human beings with whom he interacted.

This was true before his Resurrection, and this was equally true after his Resurrection. Indeed, both Luke (Lk 24) and John (Jn 20-21) go out of their way to accentuate the visible, tangible character of Christ’s glorified body. Although Christ could come and go at will, yet when he was present, he was present in a locally tangible, definable fashion. Locality, not ubiquity. His glorified body had empirical properties.

That’s essential to the Lukan theology of the Resurrection as well as the Johannine theology of the Resurrection. The body of the Risen Christ is something which it was possible for observers to see and feel.

But in order to defend the “Real Presence” in relation to the communion elements, one has to radically redefine a body. And, in the process, one has to radically redefine, both the Incarnation and the Resurrection.

The sacramental realist eviscerates the Incarnation and the Resurrection for the sake of his Eucharistic dogma. In order to save appearances, the corporality of the body is shorn of its corporal properties.

In effect, the sacramental realist reduces the body of Christ to an astral body or subtle matter. He must purchase a “high” sacramentology at the cost of a low Christology.